I'm use 2010.001 GE.

 

Attached is a test scenario and database necessary to run the scenario.

 

Scenario: Blue (Bainbridge) will launch 8 SSM's (Harpoon IC) at a Red test platform armed with 2x127mm/38 Mk28 mounts (1 bearing Port and 1 bearing Starboard). We're testing:

 

1. How many shots will Red's mounts fire

2. Which of Red's mounts (if not all) will engage

 

*** Note: I purposely changed the min/max altitude for the Harpoon IC's to LOW/LOW to put them in the engagement envelope of the 127mm/38's.

 

Setup and Run:

 

1. Select the RED side to play

2. Blue (Bainbridge) will immediately get a visual and fire off all 8 of it's Harpoon IC weapons

3. Speed up the game a bit

4. After the Harpoons impact select Red's Test A ship from the unit window, "FULL" from detail window, and then "WEAPONS"

5. Select the 127mm/38 Mk28 mounts and then "UNGROUP"

6. Check each mount (Port and Starboard)

 

Which mount engaged in point defense and how many shots fired (ammo reduced)?

 

Results:

 

I have the 127mm mounts set in the database with a ROF = 4. The mount has 2 barrells and I want the mount to fire every 30 seconds (twice per minute, per barrell). I happen to like the old Harpoon gunnery system of 30 minute engagement cycles, that's why I have it set that way.

 

I've run this test many times and the 127mm mounts always fires 4 times in point defense (or so the ammo is reduced by 4 rounds at least).

Additionally, I've seen that only the Starboard 127mm mount will engage.

 

Questions:

 

I'm assuming the program is firing 4 times and not just reducing the ammo by 4. I conclude the ROF field controls the number of times a gun mount will fire in point defense? Is the mount getting 4 chances (at 20% each time) to kill the missile?

 

Maybe the mount firing arcs are the reason why only the Starboard mounts will engage? I've changed heading of the Test platform so that the Port mount bears, but still seems only the Starboard mount engages. Is there a "glitch" in the firing arc code? I seem to recall older versions of Harpoon did not really adhere to firing arcs much (if at all) and they were essentially information only.

 

Please play around with this test scenario and see if your findings are the same as mine and offer feedback. Maybe all above is by willful design, but I would think each mount should engage 1 time (or per barrel would be acceptable) and either the firing arc code needs shored up or removed entirely.

Gun_Test_MJC.zip

Is there a "glitch" in the firing arc code? I seem to recall older versions of Harpoon did not really adhere to firing arcs much (if at all) and they were essentially information only.

 

Yeah, the gun arcs of fire do not work and have not for a long time now.

I'm use 2010.001 GE.

 

Attached is a test scenario and database necessary to run the scenario.

 

Questions:

 

I'm assuming the program is firing 4 times and not just reducing the ammo by 4. I conclude the ROF field controls the number of times a gun mount will fire in point defense? Is the mount getting 4 chances (at 20% each time) to kill the missile?

 

Maybe the mount firing arcs are the reason why only the Starboard mounts will engage? I've changed heading of the Test platform so that the Port mount bears, but still seems only the Starboard mount engages. Is there a "glitch" in the firing arc code? I seem to recall older versions of Harpoon did not really adhere to firing arcs much (if at all) and they were essentially information only.

 

Please play around with this test scenario and see if your findings are the same as mine and offer feedback. Maybe all above is by willful design, but I would think each mount should engage 1 time (or per barrel would be acceptable) and either the firing arc code needs shored up or removed entirely.

 

Way to go! Point defense does still use some arc limitations. 'Regular' guns do not adhere to arcs anymore because I got lazy, not for any deeper technical reason. Looking forward to seeing more findings here from others .

It just dawned on me that the test scenario I attached was made with a battleset I created with the builder, so I guess no one will be able to run my test scenario! If anyone is interested in playing with this issue, heres the .hcbs file needed. See the database and scenario file in the first post in this thread.

 

I can live with regular gunnery not adhering to firing arcs, but I think point defense firing arcs would be important to nail down. I also think it should fire 1 time only per mount regardless of the ROF field with the ATA PH listed in database. If a compromise is needed I can live with per tube. Maybe while solving the point defence firing arc/# times fire issue regular gunnery firing arcs can be solved too as a result. I think that would probably make very happy those WWII Harpoonists out there!

 

I hope others will chime in and get involved. I think this is an important issue that can be solved with enough support from the community spuring Tony to justify the time to find a programming solution.

GIUK.zip

Good work on testing all this.

 

@Tony: How hard would it be to code in the arcs for the naval guns? And is it worth the effort?

Good work on testing all this.

 

@Tony: How hard would it be to code in the arcs for the naval guns? And is it worth the effort?

call me a wet blanket but I wouldn't think this would sit at the top of the consolidated wish list that Tony compiled (from all our wish lists) late last year. So I'd ask "would the effort needed be better spent on some of the wish list items?"

Perhaps an ability to place 'markers' on the screen, highlight selected groups or units, fix some of the drop down lists that go to the list start after each selection etc?

Certainly the current situation as uncovered here isn't perfect but in the heat of battle I think the job is done acceptably well, clearly others might disagree with me.

Don Thomas

Squeaky wheel and all that too. Priority #1 at the moment is preventing the kamikaze planes reintroduced by the improved air guns which leads to linked Priority #2 to send the game for release to AGSI. After that we'll see, arcs are seemingly an easy thing to test and debug so they could just accidentally slip into my efforts.

 

I've avoided them also in the grander gunnery scheme since it bothers me not having more user interface for guns (like a "hey buddy, stop shooting at that target" button). Arcs just complicate the decision of the game to keep shooting or not.

 

Anyway, I think in a long roundabout way that answers each query

I would have said something like "low hanging fruit".

I would have said something like "low hanging fruit".

 

Being the 'glass half empty' type guy I am, I often wonder what animals have already tried to munch on the low hanging fruit already.